Sony Rebooting Spider-Man for 2012!!!

[Spider-X]

I still cant get over 80 mil. My hopes for the film are fadeing fast.

Has that been debunked as true by the studio or anyone involved in the film? I believe this might be a rumor started by Risky Business blogs: http://www.superherohype.com/news/spider-mannews.php?id=9001

[Project862006]

^ Hollywood reporter had it in there article

[Silver Knight]

Yeap, that is what scares me the most.

[LegendaryCaleb]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/23/joseph-gordon-levitt-has-had-cool-conversations-with-marc-webb-about-spider-man/
wow...heck yes...totally for him as spidey if thats why hes actin like that...he would be great!

[rocco2216]

wow...heck yes...totally for him as spidey if thats why hes actin like that...he would be great!

But he's 28. Unless Marc Webb wants him and Sony wants an actual teen actor.

[Ipodman]

How is it 80M and in 3D???

[JP]

I would **** myself if he was PP.

[MAN O STEEL]

But he's 28. Unless Marc Webb wants him and Sony wants an actual teen actor.


Tobey Maguire was 27 when spiderman 1 came out, is 1 yr older that big of a difference for Joseph Gordon Levitt?. Especially given that much like Maguire he looks youthfull for his age?.




Steve

[LegendaryCaleb]

I would **** myself if he was PP.
in a good way like i would ??? :oldrazz:
hes 28 but he looks young and i think they could pull it off...plus i dont really like any of the other options such as lerman and all them... JGL is baby faced and could play Parker incredibly well with ease...Tobey was convincing as a high school kid in SM1
give him a tad bit of muscle and hes got the lanky spidey look like ultimate spider-man

[Ipodman]

Wonder who will be Mary Jane...

[JP]

I actually wouldn't want him to gain any muscle. I like Spidey lanky.

[Project862006]

Tobey Maguire was 27 when spiderman 1 came out, is 1 yr older that big of a difference for Joseph Gordon Levitt?. Especially given that much like Maguire he looks youthfull for his age?.




Steve

but TM was 26 while filming JGL would be 29 while filming the Reboot and about 31 by the time it is released in 2012

[rocco2216]

Tobey Maguire was 27 when spiderman 1 came out, is 1 yr older that big of a difference for Joseph Gordon Levitt?. Especially given that much like Maguire he looks youthfull for his age?.




Steve

That's the problem, I didn't buy Tobey as a teenager. And we barely saw him in high school. If the plan is for Peter Parker to be in high school then it should be a much younger actor.

[TheWrathOfGod]

Sony wants to do what WB did with Harry Potter; cast young actors to "grow into their roles." I'm guessing any kid from a Disney TV show will do.

[The Bat-Man]

That's a really interesting interview. Seems like he may know something we don't or there may actually be discussions about him taking on the role by the way he was acting. He could just be having fun with it, making people speculate, but he was acting a little odd.

Me, I'm not completely convinced. I saw (500) Days of Summer and it was excellent and I like JGL as an actor. I'm just not sure that I could see him as Spider-Man and it's not even the age thing. I just don't see him in the role. Perhaps I would change my mind if I saw him do it, but I just don't see how it would work. I get the sense that he could pull off the Spider-Man part, but the Peter Parker part is what I'm worried about.

[spider-neil]

that interview was like the webb interview. he defiantely knows something. it wouldn't surprise me if he got the part.

[Ace of Knaves]

So JGL is in the running? That's GREAT news. Great young actor and he doesn't look his age.

[kedrell]

At the time that Spider-man 2 came out, it had much better CGI then the first one. Of course there were times when full CGI people looked goofy, but that's how all full CGI people at that time looked. Until Gollum, everyone looked goofy. I don't remember what else was released that year, but I'm not surprised Spider-man 2 won best special effects.


The entire LOTR trilogy came out before SM2.

[kedrell]

I just re watched Spider-Man 2 last night.

Its a brilliant movie. Leaps better than the first and the third.

Its the definitive Spider-Man movie. Everything feels right.

The CGI still holds up for being made in 2004. Those saying its bad should watch the movie again as the fluidity is still pretty impressive.

I was reminded why this movie stands as one of the best comic book adaptations ever made.

Definitive? Hardly, IMO. It's clearly the best over all of the Raimi films but often has the worst CGI of the 3. I just saw it again yesterday as well and I can't count how many bad renderings there are. And most of them are due to it being in the day time, I think.

[Batspider77]

This Guy is Funny and i´m totally agree with him...

"You can still get an infraction for posting or quoting a video with profanity"

~SHOW~

[kedrell]

Huh? The film won the academy award for best Visual Effects. They were incredible, if you ask me.


That was because it was a weak year for SFX movies. It's only competition was I, Robot and HP3. SM2 was the better overall movie than either of those two and that also informs how the academy votes. I mean, do you think a film that is blasted by the critics, yet has superb SFX regardless, would ever get considered? Well, we'll see if TF2 gets nominated this year for the answer to that. But usually, a film that gets an SFX nom also had to be well received as a whole before that.

[Lunar_Wolf]

The only time I didn't like the special effects in Spider-Man 2, was the first time we see Spider-Man, whipping through the air and he takes the pizza back.

[kedrell]

That was a really bad SFX scene, true.

[Ipodman]

Since we're talking about Spidey 2... hows 2.1? Ive been wanting to get the dvd for that but never knew if it was better or what...

[craigdbfan]

Definitive? Hardly, IMO. It's clearly the best over all of the Raimi films but often has the worst CGI of the 3. I just saw it again yesterday as well and I can't count how many bad renderings there are. And most of them are due to it being in the day time, I think.

The worst CGI?

We are going to have to disagree. It definitely doesn't have worse CGI than SM 1 thats for sure. Then maybe its SM1 you need to give a re watch. The CGI rarely is up to par with 2. Goblin on the glider more often than not seems clunky, when Spider-Man goes for Uncle Ben's killer etc.

It's very off kilter but expected seeing as human CGI was in its early days of actually working somewhat, it needed to demonstrate an agile and graphically demanding character (SM). It did pretty good for its time but has certainly aged. It does have its good moments though (Spider-Man dodging GG razors).

Spider-Man 3 had some good special effects (especially when he saves Gwen, that entire scene of dodging all the crane and the rubble). But lets not forget that it was released in 2007, thats only 3 years ago (still a pretty terrible film).

So of course its effects are going to look better than SM2 but not nearly enough to detract from SM2 fantastic almost operatic portrayal of Peter Parker/SM story.

When I wrote definitive I meant of the current films. Webbs might be as good, better, worse, or just mediocre.

That is still up in the air until we see the new movie.

But of the three Spider-Man movies that exist SM2 is by far the best.

[Ipodman]

The CGI in 2 and 3 was amazing.... the goblin on a glider scenes in 1 are quite bad for today...

[spider-neil]

the CG in the train fight is fantastic, you guys are seriously harsh critics. what I find bizarre is the effects in 3 are actually WORSE than 2. I know the fx supervsior Dykstra left on SM3 but even so the movie had a bigger budget.

[Rodrigo90]

Sandman's first appearance was stunning. When he forms from the sand pile.

[fullmetalRE]

Sandman's first appearance was stunning. When he forms from the sand pile.

The scene where the building is destroyed with Gwen in it was pure crap.

[craigdbfan]

the CG in the train fight is fantastic, you guys are seriously harsh critics. what I find bizarre is the effects in 3 are actually WORSE than 2. I know the fx supervsior Dykstra left on SM3 but even so the movie had a bigger budget.

Exactly the entire train fight along with the extended scenes are awesome, one of the best action sequences in a superhero movie. The bank fight was also superb and wonderfully choreographed.

Doc Ocks claws looked excellent.

When he was web slinging the motion of his body looked far better than the rubbery appearance he had in much of the first movie.

[craigdbfan]

The scene where the building is destroyed with Gwen in it was pure crap.

I'd say the underground subway battle with Sandman was far worse.

[kedrell]

The worst CGI?

We are going to have to disagree. It definitely doesn't have worse CGI than SM 1 thats for sure. Then maybe its SM1 you need to give a re watch. The CGI rarely is up to par with 2. Goblin on the glider more often than not seems clunky, when Spider-Man goes for Uncle Ben's killer etc.

I am not saying that SM1 didn't have bad CGI. Of course it did. But it wisely kept almost all of the action at night and that helped it a bit. Goblin CGI in that daytime attack was pretty aweful though.

It's very off kilter but expected seeing as human CGI was in its early days of actually working somewhat, it needed to demonstrate an agile and graphically demanding character (SM). It did pretty good for its time but has certainly aged. It does have its good moments though (Spider-Man dodging GG razors).

They ALL have aged in the wake of the FX in films like IM, BB & TDK.

Spider-Man 3 had some good special effects (especially when he saves Gwen, that entire scene of dodging all the crane and the rubble). But lets not forget that it was released in 2007, thats only 3 years ago (still a pretty terrible film).

I agree, SM3 had the best FX(still had plenty of times where it was very noticeable though). But the film over all was the absolute worst of the 3.

So of course its effects are going to look better than SM2 but not nearly enough to detract from SM2 fantastic almost operatic portrayal of Peter Parker/SM story.

I agree that over all, SM2 is the best of the bunch. But I wasn't talking over all, just SFX.

When I wrote definitive I meant of the current films. Webbs might be as good, better, worse, or just mediocre.

That is still up in the air until we see the new movie.

But of the three Spider-Man movies that exist SM2 is by far the best.

I agree and fair enough.

[spider-neil]

Exactly the entire train fight along with the extended scenes are awesome, one of the best action sequences in a superhero movie. The bank fight was also superb and wonderfully choreographed.

Doc Ocks claws looked excellent.

When he was web slinging the motion of his body looked far better than the rubbery appearance he had in much of the first movie.


I think its 'THE' best action sequences in a superhero movie

[kedrell]

I think its 'THE' best action sequences in a superhero movie

Hmm, gotta disagree there. I don't even think it was the best in all of Raimi's Spider-Man movies. I thought the Harry/Peter fight at the begining of SM3 was the best of the Raimi movies.

[spider-neil]

Hmm, gotta disagree there. I don't even think it was the best in all of Raimi's Spider-Man movies. I thought the Harry/Peter fight at the begining of SM3 was the best of the Raimi movies.

its edge of your seat brilliant and goes on for ages. I just didn't feel that excitement for the
the plane sequence - SR
the afghanistan rescue/MIG dog fight - IM
bat pod/tumbler - TDK/BB

just my opinion

[kedrell]

Well there's no real argueing of opinion, but I thought all of those scenes you just listed were better than the Ock Train fight with the sole exception of the SR/Plane scene. But that SM2 scene sure didn't feel like it went on forever to me. And I've clocked it in comparison to those others and it really wasn't that long at all. 3 minutes of fighting and I think about 2 minutes of train saving. Somewhere there-a-bouts.

[spider-neil]

Well there's no real argueing of opinion, but I thought all of those scenes you just listed were better than the Ock Train fight with the sole exception of the SR/Plane scene. But that SM2 scene sure didn't feel like it went on forever to me. And I've clocked it in comparison to those others and it really wasn't that long at all. 3 minutes of fighting and I think about 2 minutes of train saving. Somewhere there-a-bouts.

oh well, each to their own :yay:

[NinjaCarm]

This Guy is Funny and i´m totally agree with him...


Yeah, that guy is funny good for him! I like his disgust for Raimi!:awesome:

"You can still get an infraction for posting or quoting a video with profanity"

~SHOW~

[The Joker]

This Guy is Funny and i´m totally agree with him...



Bloody hell, how many times did he say f**king in that vid?

"You can still get an infraction for posting or quoting a video with profanity"

~SHOW~

[LegendaryCaleb]

I'd say the underground subway battle with Sandman was far worse.
the worst in my opinion was the final showdown with venom...when he sticks the metal bars in the ground its like watching a video game...it looks poor and theres even a shot where he sticks two bars down with it only showing his arms and they look wayyyyy too far apart...its like they fell asleep and had to rush to finish

[LegendaryCaleb]

That's a really interesting interview. Seems like he may know something we don't or there may actually be discussions about him taking on the role by the way he was acting. He could just be having fun with it, making people speculate, but he was acting a little odd.

Me, I'm not completely convinced. I saw (500) Days of Summer and it was excellent and I like JGL as an actor. I'm just not sure that I could see him as Spider-Man and it's not even the age thing. I just don't see him in the role. Perhaps I would change my mind if I saw him do it, but I just don't see how it would work. I get the sense that he could pull off the Spider-Man part, but the Peter Parker part is what I'm worried about.
i made an avatar of him as spidey for the sony boards (yes hes got short hair in the pic but) i think he looks young enough AND he looks great in the spidey costume..but like you said...the main thing we need is someone who can pull it off...and im sure he can pull it off if given the chance!

[david icke]

the CG in the train fight is fantastic, you guys are seriously harsh critics. what I find bizarre is the effects in 3 are actually WORSE than 2. I know the fx supervsior Dykstra left on SM3 but even so the movie had a bigger budget.

Yeah, I agree that the sfx in 3 are not as good as in 2. The thing is , they had much more sfx to contend with in 3, 3 villans as well as Spider-man, one villan, Sandman, who did all sorts of different things that had to be designed and tested.
Also, it has much more action throughout the movie.

Dykstra is a legend in the industry, and I think for good reason, him leaving the team would have a big effect on quality control. His sfx on 'Batman and Robin' is the only impressive thing about that movie, and they still hold up even 12yrs later, the digital body doubles of Batman being better than a lot of today's superhero films. The shot when Batman ejects out of the Batmobile in mid-air looks fantastic. He pioneered the digital body double for Batman Forever. It's no coincidence that the same guy who pioneered sfx use for the 1st Star Wars did the same for superhero movies.

[kedrell]

JLG would've been a good idea IF they were just continuing the previous films, but him as a high schooler? Too late for that, IMO.

[VenomVsSpidey]

Bloody hell, how many times did he say f**king in that vid?

might wanna modify that post, just because you quoted it won't stop your infraction :cwink:

[Spider-ManHero12]

That was because it was a weak year for SFX movies. S-M1 was nominated for the best Visual Effects as well.

[kedrell]

S-M1 was nominated for the best Visual Effects as well.


But it didn't win. Seriously, they HAVE to pick at least 3 to put in the slots for that oscar. And if they don't have 3 that were all stunning to do it with then they need to bring up the next rung of SFX movies.

[Showtime]

This Guy is Funny and i´m totally agree with him...

"You can still get an infraction for posting or quoting a video with profanity"

~SHOW~

Yeah, that guy is funny good for him! I like his disgust for Raimi!:awesome:

"You can still get an infraction for posting or quoting a video with profanity"

~SHOW~

Bloody hell, how many times did he say f**king in that vid?

"You can still get an infraction for posting or quoting a video with profanity"

~SHOW~

might wanna modify that post, just because you quoted it won't stop your infraction :cwink:

This guy is right. :angry:

[The Joker]

You can get an infraction for quoting something someone else posted?

LMAO!

[LegendaryCaleb]

You can get an infraction for quoting something someone else posted?

LMAO!
yeahhh man...had it happen twice...it sucks

[NinjaCarm]

You can get an infraction for quoting something someone else posted?

LMAO!

Gonna have to me more carefull now that I know this.

[JustABill]

I think personally it's a little over the top and insane that you can. :o

But back to Spider-Man.

[Spider-ManHero12]

You can get an infraction for quoting something someone else posted?

LMAO! Happened to me once, sadly.

[Maze]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/23/joseph-gordon-levitt-has-had-cool-conversations-with-marc-webb-about-spider-man/

[NinjaCarm]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/23/joseph-gordon-levitt-has-had-cool-conversations-with-marc-webb-about-spider-man/

I said before and will say it again, the guy is simply not Peter Parker to me.

Please no.

[JustABill]

I said before and will say it again, the guy is simply not Peter Parker to me.

Please no.
If Marc Webb casts him as Spider-Man. I'll cry. I can't see him as ANY superhero.

[kedrell]

[sigh] the sad thing is that JGL was always the guy I wanted for Rick Jones in a Hulk movie. Ah, missed opportunities. :(

[Nathan]

It wouldn't make sense to go with JGL. Isn't the reboot supposed to take place in high school? Unless they rewrote it and are turning it in a loose sequel. Or maybe he talked with him because Webb wants him in another role in the Movie.

What roles could you see JGL in?

[JustABill]

Maxwell Dillion. Ned Leeds.

[kedrell]

Well according to the link that rocco2216 posted on another page, Sony at best is gonna be able to make 3 more movies before they're out of the Spidey business for good, so it makes sense why they are hauling ass.

[Hurm...]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/23/joseph-gordon-levitt-has-had-cool-conversations-with-marc-webb-about-spider-man/
If he is cast, I will jizz in my pants.

[kedrell]

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2010/01/15/why-for-did-sony-pictures-decide-not-to-go-forward-with-production-of-spider-man-4.aspx (http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/archive/2010/01/15/why-for-did-sony-pictures-decide-not-to-go-forward-with-production-of-spider-man-4.aspx)

Why For did Sony Pictures decide not to go forward with production of “Spider-Man 4” ?
Hiya Jim,
Sony just today announced that they're going to re-boot Spider-Man in 2012 (http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/urgent-spider-man-4-scrapped-as-is-raimi-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned/) - no Raimi (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000600/), no Maguire (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001497/), no Dunst (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000379/). Does this mean anything for Disney? Could it be possible for them to somehow buy the rights back from Sony and then let Marvel (http://marvel.com/) Studios do a new film?
Thanks,
Ephraim
Ephraim –
Nope. Not at this point, anyway. Though -- from what I hear -- one of the main reasons that Sony moved so quickly to announce their reboot of this film franchise after Sam Raimi said that “Spider-Man 4” couldn’t possibly make its previously-locked-in May 5th, 2011 release date (http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/exclusive-spider-man-4-officially-has-no-start-date-as-of-today-because-of-script-problems-sony-unlikely-to-make-5112010-release-date/) was this Studio’s very real fear that – if they dawdled – Disney’s lawyers might then find some loophole in Sony's original licensing agreement with Marvel that Mickey could then exploit. Which would then allow the Mouse House to reclaim the motion picture rights for this particular superhero from Sony / Columbia Pictures (http://www.sonypicturesstudiostours.com/) prematurely.

As a Sony Pictures insider explained this situation to me earlier this week:
For over 10 years now, we’ve had a good working relationship with Marvel. But now that the Mouse owns Marvel, no one’s entirely sure how aggressive The Walt Disney Company is going to be when it comes to regaining the rights to these characters. Which is why management here felt that it was crucial that this film franchise maintain forward momentum. So that Disney’s attorneys would have as few opportunities as possible to probe for weakness in our licensing agreement with Marvel.
Which is why – come the Summer of 2012 – Peter Parker is headed back to high school. This Spider-Man reboot will be written by James Vanderbilt (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007333.html?categoryid=13&cs=1) (Who – oddly enough – was one of the first very writers that Sony Pictures hired to work with Sam Raimi on Spider-Man 4). As for who will direct & star in this 2012 tentpole … Studio officials promise that all of this information will be revealed in the coming months.

As for Disney … They’re really just getting started on figuring out how to recover that $4.3 billion that they paid out for Marvel Entertainment, Inc. The Company’s short-term plans involve piggybacking on some of the Marvel-related projects that other studios will be releasing over the next year or so. EX: On or about May 7th of this year – which is when Paramount Pictures (http://www.paramount.com/) will be releasing “Iron Man 2 (http://ironmanmovie.marvel.com/)” to theaters – Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/home.html) is expected to put out a DVD that will then showcase selected episodes of the Iron Man animated TV series (http://disney.go.com/disneyxd/shows/ironman/).
Beyond that … As expected, Disney’s attorneys will spend the next few years reviewing all of the licensing deals that Marvel Entertainment, Inc. has signed over the years. And – just as Sony officials feared – they will continually review these contracts, making sure that every single previously-agreed-upon term & condition is being met and/or honored. And if not … Well, you can bet that Mickey’s lawyers will then move at warp speed to sever these arrangements. Which would then allow control of the Marvel characters in question to revert back to The Walt Disney Company.
Long story short: This is going to be a long, involved process that will probably include a couple of lawsuits. But by 2017, Disney hopes to regain control of most if not all of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. characters. And that’s when the real fun (read that as “serious profit taking”) begins.

[LegendaryCaleb]

If he is cast, I will jizz in my pants.

Me too! Jgl has been who I've wanted from the moment I heard reboot!!

[Showtime]

You can get an infraction for quoting something someone else posted?

LMAO!

Yes.

I think personally it's a little over the top and insane that you can. :o


Yes.

[Fanticon]

Too soon to reboot. the public won't "get it" and its an absolute travesty sony couldn't agree on a budget or sams ego. the movies make bank! dish out the big bucks and enjoy the rewards. WTF!? I could care less about an ultimate spiderman live action movie.

[Showtime]

http://splashpage.mtv.com/2010/01/23/joseph-gordon-levitt-has-had-cool-conversations-with-marc-webb-about-spider-man/

As Peter Parker he is a great choice, but "high school Peter Parker"? That doesn't make any sense. At this stage he can't pass for a high school kid.

[spider-neil]

But by 2017, Disney hopes to regain control of most if not all of Marvel Entertainment, Inc. characters.




more than enough time to run spidey into the ground

[Hurm...]

Me too! Jgl has been who I've wanted from the moment I heard reboot!!Yeah, same with me. I hope they can work something out with the script so he can play Parker. Could he pass for a senior?

[kedrell]

more than enough time to run spidey into the ground

Nah, Spidey can't be destroyed. Batman wasn't by B&R so I'm not worried at all. Sure, it's possible that we may have to endure as many as 3 more crappy movies but that's all.

[Baggers]

If he is cast, I will jizz in my pants.

:up:

[Chris Wallace]

I said before and will say it again, the guy is simply not Peter Parker to me.

Please no.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!
Something you & I agree on!

[NinjaCarm]

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!
Something you & I agree on!

I didn't know we disagreed....:woot:

[Deaths Head II]

Nah, Spidey can't be destroyed. Batman wasn't by B&R so I'm not worried at all. Sure, it's possible that we may have to endure as many as 3 more crappy movies but that's all.

He can't be destroyed but he could be put on hiatus for a very long time. If it happened to Batman and happened/is happening to Superman then even Spider-Man isn't immune to that fate.

[Avengers-Report]

As Peter Parker he is a great choice, but "high school Peter Parker"? That doesn't make any sense. At this stage he can't pass for a high school kid.

I disagree, some of the choices movies/shows use for high school characters is absolutely ridiculous.

[Showtime]

I disagree, some of the choices movies/shows use for high school characters is absolutely ridiculous.

So what do you disagree with exactly?

[Silver Knight]

Who do you guys want as Peter?

[kedrell]

He can't be destroyed but he could be put on hiatus for a very long time. If it happened to Batman and happened/is happening to Superman then even Spider-Man isn't immune to that fate.


Marvel won't let him sit on a shelf like WB did with Bats/Supes. And even so, a good 5-8 year hiatus isn't a bad thing at all. Plenty to fill the void these days.

[LegendaryCaleb]

Yeah, same with me. I hope they can work something out with the script so he can play Parker. Could he pass for a senior?

I have friends that look older than him that are 16! I think he could easily pull off being a senior...just shave the facial hair and he's set...the guy has a baby face!

[night0205]

except that Peter Parker isn't a senior in Ultimate.

[LegendaryCaleb]

Webb can easily change it up a lil...

[night0205]

it's just that when I see them saying he's going back to High School, I assume that means that they want the focus of the trilogy to be of him during high school...so they would start early on in High School. At least that's the impression I'm getting, which can be completely off.

I for one think it opens up a lot more potential for Spider-man, if done right.

[JP]

If Marc Webb casts him as Spider-Man. I'll cry. I can't see him as ANY superhero.
Really? I can easily see him as Peter Parker, Cyclops, and the Joker.

[craigdbfan]

The Joker is a villain.

He'd be able to pull that role well. I know its heresy to even think like that but I truly think if Nolan needed the Joker back and thought JGL would give a good performance.

I'm all for it. Anyway thats a completely different subject.

I've never liked the idea of JGL as Peter Parker/SM, I like a lot of his movies and 3rd from the Sun but never was keen to he idea.

Not only does he not look like Peter Parker he doesn't have the exact attitude and I know some will say otherwise but thats just my perspective on the entire JGL for Spider-Man situation.

[Cuyan]

Those aren't all the same person, guy.

[3dman27]

I disagree, some of the choices movies/shows use for high school characters is absolutely ridiculous.

older actors being used for teen roles can get annoying but if the producers don't want to deal with on settutors and child labor laws thats generaly the rout they take

[spider-neil]

if you're signing an actor in their mid/late 20's after a sequel they'll be too old.

[Wolvieboy17]

For all we know only the first film will take place in High School, in which case I think JGL would be fine. If Tobey Maguire can pass for it, then JGL is a shoe in. One problem I have with them casting an unknown, is it will be harder to find someone inexperienced with the right charisma to play him.

[Oscorp]

Tbh, I think JGL would be an ideal choice for a younger Peter Parker. He kinda looks like the Ultimate Peter Parker to me. JGL may be alot older, but he looks VERY young for his age imo. And I really hope it's just gonna be in the last year of high-school. I don't want Peter to be any younger than that. And I DEFINITELY don't want a teenager ala Disney Channel to play him. I simply don't trust young teenagers to be able to pull something like Spider-Man off.

[JustABill]

Really? I can easily see him as Peter Parker, Cyclops, and the Joker.
I can see him as The Joker, and if we are going Spider-Man: Ned Leeds or Maxwell Dillion.

But Cyclops and Peter Parker? No. Perhaps I'm just picky with Peter and Cyclops since Peter's my favorite Marvel character and Cyclops is in my top 5 X-Men. But I just can't see him as either one of those.

[Hurm...]

Tbh, I think JGL would be an ideal choice for a younger Peter Parker. He kinda looks like the Ultimate Peter Parker to me. JGL may be alot older, but he looks VERY young for his age imo. And I really hope it's just gonna be in the last year of high-school. I don't want Peter to be any younger than that. And I DEFINITELY don't want a teenager ala Disney Channel to play him. I simply don't trust young teenagers to be able to pull something like Spider-Man off.
These are my exact thoughts on the whole situation.

[Spider-Fan]

Levitt as a high school aged Parker?

Makes about as much sense as Travolta in Grease.

[chaseter]

HAHAHAHAHA. I love Grease but Travolta looked 30:o Levitt is 28 years old...that is lol worthy if he is playing a teenager. People complained that Tobey looked old but if JGL is the new Peter...he will be nearly 40 when the third film is released if they have the regular 3 year break in between. ROFL.

[chaseter]

For all we know only the first film will take place in High School, in which case I think JGL would be fine. If Tobey Maguire can pass for it, then JGL is a shoe in. One problem I have with them casting an unknown, is it will be harder to find someone inexperienced with the right charisma to play him.
We do know the first film will take place in High School. They said Spidey is returning to High School and Peter will be facing issues that teens face today. Like gurls and mary jane...and Mary Jane.:o

[Reikowolf]

hopefully it will be Gwen stacey, with Mary Jane showing up later... even mimicking the iconic one liner

[Dark Helmet]

If he is cast, I will jizz in my pants.

No way in hell will he be able to pass in any way as a teenaged High School Kid. Unless Sony will dramatically change things & Peter Parker is an idiot that he has been held back in High School up until the age of over 20 & he gets bit late in life. If he is in this movie no way in hell will he be Peter Parker unless as I said Sony dramatically changes things

[Dark Helmet]

If he is cast, I will jizz in my pants.

No way in hell will he be able to pass in any way as a teenaged High School Kid. Unless Sony will dramatically change things & Peter Parker is an idiot that he has been held back in High School up until the age of over 20 & he gets bit late in life. If he is in this movie no way in hell will he be Peter Parker unless as I said Sony dramatically changes things

[kedrell]

HAHAHAHAHA. I love Grease but Travolta looked 30:o Levitt is 28 years old...that is lol worthy if he is playing a teenager. People complained that Tobey looked old but if JGL is the new Peter...he will be nearly 40 when the third film is released if they have the regular 3 year break in between. ROFL.

That isn't gonna happen. They've got 7 years from NOW to play around with Spider-Man. After that, they're SOL. So that will give them only 5 years after the next film is released to crank out another two, at best.

[Dark Helmet]

That isn't gonna happen. They've got 7 years from NOW to play around with Spider-Man. After that, they're SOL. So that will give them only 5 years after the next film is released to crank out another two, at best.

They will be literally forced to make 2 & 3 back to back to have one more trilogy if this new reboot is successful

[LegendaryCaleb]

Tbh, I think JGL would be an ideal choice for a younger Peter Parker. He kinda looks like the Ultimate Peter Parker to me. JGL may be alot older, but he looks VERY young for his age imo. And I really hope it's just gonna be in the last year of high-school. I don't want Peter to be any younger than that. And I DEFINITELY don't want a teenager ala Disney Channel to play him. I simply don't trust young teenagers to be able to pull something like Spider-Man off.
i totally agree all around man!

[Cuyan]

Me too!

... aside from the the Joseph Gordon-Levitt thing. :ninja:

[chaseter]

Not wanting a teenager to play a teenager and instead wanting a 30 year old to play a teenager is a bit disturbing........................................ .................................................. .................................................. ......................................

[LegendaryCaleb]

most teenage actors are garbage...so go for an adult that can pull off the look of a high schooler...in which i believe JGL could...
how is it disturbing?

[Dangerous]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt?

Urgh, No I don't like his face.

I don't like looking at it.

Let's hope he does not get cast.

[GoldGoblin]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a great actor,and we would be lucky to have him play Peter/spidey.

[3dman27]

Not wanting a teenager to play a teenager and instead wanting a 30 year old to play a teenager is a bit disturbing........................................ .................................................. .................................................. ......................................

teen actors aress ubject to child labor law sony would have to hire on set tutors and limit how many hours the younger cast members could work alsotheactors ablity andmaurity could come into play

[craigdbfan]

Actors that are 18-21 do exist.

Logan Lerman being one of them. Once your 18 you're no longer tied to those Child Labor Laws restricting the amount of time they can be on set.

[Dangerous]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a great actor,and we would be lucky to have him play Peter/spidey.

Hell no.

Horrible choice.

[LegendaryCaleb]

Hell no.

Horrible choice.
in your opinion of course.

[Darkness Falls]

why all the hate for JGL :/

if it wasn't for his age, he would be a great peter parker/spiderman
certainly destroys half of the actors mentioned in the casting thread :/

[JP]

More than half.

[Eggyman]

But less than a whole.

I don't like the sound of him as PP.

[JP]

I don't like the sound of anyone's PP.

[Eggyman]

Make them put tissue down first then.

[Chris Wallace]

I think we may be jumping the gun a bit. Directors don't ALWAYS go to the actors they've worked with before. I remember when EVERYBODY KNEW Nolan was gonna get Guy Pierce to play Batman. Guess what? He didn't. Johnny Depp wasn't in "Planet Of The Apes"-which, granted, may be the only thing Burton's done in the last decade or so that didn't involve Depp, but still. We don't know for sure that Cobra Commander is even interested in the part, nor do we know that he's under consideration, right?

[spider-neil]

I'm almost unconcerned with the characterization of PP (I thought raimi did a decent enough job) it's the characterization of spidey that I'm most concerned with. I want the actor to be able to convey unbridled job at having super powers and someone that can bring across being a wise arse without showing his eyes or mouth.

as much as I love raimi's spidey movies, let's face it spidey had no personality.

[Eggyman]

let's face it spidey had no personality.

I agree. That in itself is a travesty.

[The Bat-Man]

At first, I wasn't so sure that JGL could pull off the role, but after watching (500) Days of Summer, I'm onboard and he's my favorite to play the role. He does look really young for his age and come on guys, it wouldn't be the first time that older actors play high school students. I think it could definitely work. I know it seems that Sony wants a young Peter Parker in high school, but maybe they could consider kicking it up to college? I mean, after all, that is when he really met Gwen Stacy and Harry Osborn. Why not start there?

[spideyboy_1111]

you know... if Zachary Levi was a lil shorter and had a youthful enough face to play a high-schooler, i think he could play a pretty great spidey

[Wolvieboy17]

you know... if Zachary Levi was a lil shorter and had a youthful enough face to play a high-schooler, i think he could play a pretty great spidey

Zac Efron on the other hand, is the perfect age... *vomits*

[Cuyan]

:dry:

[Wolvieboy17]

I'm almost unconcerned with the characterization of PP (I thought raimi did a decent enough job) it's the characterization of spidey that I'm most concerned with. I want the actor to be able to convey unbridled job at having super powers and someone that can bring across being a wise arse without showing his eyes or mouth.

as much as I love raimi's spidey movies, let's face it spidey had no personality.

But Spidey and Peter Parker should be the same person, and have the same personality... It's just how he reacts in different situations... What sucked about the Raimi movies is that they painted Peter Parker as a generic nerd in ALL social situations. Just because he wasn't popular at school or anything, he was still quite witty and displayed charisma when with his friends, or Aunt May. It's like if you watch Superbad, or any good teen comedy (not that I want Spidey to be like Michael Cera AT ALL), if you see those characters, sure within the context of their place in the micro cosm of high school, they're 'losers' but they're still full of charisma, and humour and all that.

It's not like Peter Parker was boring and only developed a personality after he got his powers. All that really changed from that was his self confidence.

[spideyboy_1111]

Zac Efron on the other hand, is the perfect age... *vomits*

but looks and acts nothing like peter parker..... :o

[Oscorp]

most teenage actors are garbage...so go for an adult that can pull off the look of a high schooler...in which i believe JGL could...
how is it disturbing?

Exactly my point. And JGL looks ALOT younger than 28.

[Wolvieboy17]

but looks and acts nothing like peter parker.....

To quote Macbain, "Daaaaats Da joooooke"

[Pac-Master]

IMO, whoever they pick to replace Tobey, has to have more to him than just having a striking resemblance. I know a lot of you guys are rooting for Logan Lerman, but is he a good dramatic actor? Is he someone who could take on a serious scene with Aunt May, in which Peter expresses his thoughts and feelings about the passing of Uncle Ben? Yes, wisecracks are a good thing, but there must also be a core. They need to choose an actor that can show boths sides to Peter; the wisecracking, fearless Spider-Man and Peter Parker, who's trying to adjust with the whole situation of his uncle dying and getting these powers.

[spideyboy_1111]

IMO, whoever they pick to replace Tobey, has to have more to him than just having a striking resemblance. I know a lot of you guys are rooting for Logan Lerman, but is he a good dramatic actor? Is he someone who could take on a serious scene with Aunt May, in which Peter expresses his thoughts and feelings about the passing of Uncle Ben? Yes, wisecracks are a good thing, but there must also be a core. They need to choose an actor that can show boths sides to Peter; the wisecracking, fearless Spider-Man and Peter Parker, who's trying to adjust with the whole situation of his uncle dying and getting these powers.

or one who makes goofy faces when he runs and screams or expresses agony? i don't think so...

[Pac-Master]

or one who makes goofy faces when he runs and screams or expresses agony? i don't think so...
I never said anything about "goofy faces". I just said they need a great, versatile actor. A real actor can get emotions across without doing goofy faces.

[Dangerous]

I don't want anyone who is anything Like Tobey,- he was a drip.

[JustABill]

Logan Lerman CAN do alot of dramatic acting as well as the quips, but with the studio behind Percy Jackson confident enough in it to already green light the sequel for 2012, I'm sure Logan's going to be out of the running for Spidey, unless the filming times for Spidey and Percy Jackson: The Sea Monsters are at two different times.

[Jostru]

Hey guys, can anyone tell me what font they used for the TAS? I can't seem to find it.

[Spider-ManHero12]

Hey guys, can anyone tell me what font they used for the TAS? I can't seem to find it. What's it for, if you don't mind me asking? :yay:

[Jostru]

What's it for? :yay:

To use for manips and stuff...

[spideyboy_1111]

I never said anything about "goofy faces". I just said they need a great, versatile actor. A real actor can get emotions across without doing goofy faces.

tobey had goofy faces... that was my point :o

[chaseter]

Matthew Fox has some goofy in faces in LOST but it doesn't mean he sucks as Jack Shephard.

[JustABill]

Matthew Fox has some goofy in faces in LOST but it doesn't mean he sucks as Jack Shephard.
Except he and Kate, aka the main two are probably the worst actors on that show.

[chaseter]

Except he and Kate, aka the main two are probably the worst actors on that show.

Kate is an annoying character but that isn't Evangeline's fault. Matthew and Evangeline do a fantastic job. Are they the best...no, but they aren't horrible.

Tobey is a good actor but he does make some silly faces. It doesn't mean he sucks.

[Doctor Jones]

Daniel Day Lewis made loud slurping noises and shouted "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" in There Will be Blood. Complaining abut goofy faces is nitpicking, only if the actor is terrible.

[spideyboy_1111]

Kate is an annoying character but that isn't Evangeline's fault. Matthew and Evangeline do a fantastic job. Are they the best...no, but they aren't horrible.

Tobey is a good actor but he does make some silly faces. It doesn't mean he sucks.

no just makes you laugh and take the scenes far less seriously...

[spideyboy_1111]

Daniel Day Lewis made loud slurping noises and shouted "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" in There Will be Blood. Complaining abut goofy faces is nitpicking, only if the actor is terrible.

slurping is a noise... most likely even added from the foly department....

[fullmetalRE]

IMO, whoever they pick to replace Tobey, has to have more to him than just having a striking resemblance. I know a lot of you guys are rooting for Logan Lerman, but is he a good dramatic actor? Is he someone who could take on a serious scene with Aunt May, in which Peter expresses his thoughts and feelings about the passing of Uncle Ben? Yes, wisecracks are a good thing, but there must also be a core. They need to choose an actor that can show boths sides to Peter; the wisecracking, fearless Spider-Man and Peter Parker, who's trying to adjust with the whole situation of his uncle dying and getting these powers.

The reason I feel so comfortable with Lerman personally if he was chosen as Peter. He has been very good dramas so far and has acted very well and this movie now he is in now Percy just shows how he can act like an actual teenager. I think you need to watch some of his earlier work to understand why people and myself feel comfortable with him.

Was great in 3:10 to Yuma, in the short lived drama Jack and Bobby, Number 23, The Patriot (Gibson, Ledger), butterfly effect. He def has the drama down and like I said earlier this new movie thats coming out now is show casing his witty side. Got both down enough for me and comes cheap unlike some others listed. Out of the other okay/bad choices hes the best one that I can think of.

[chaseter]

no just makes you laugh and take the scenes far less seriously...

So that means that they are bad actors?:dry:

[Cuyan]

Matthew Fox and Evangeline Lilly are both, in fact, terrible actors.

[Sawyer]

Matthew Fox and Evangeline Lilly are both, in fact, terrible actors.

Them's fightin' words, troll. :o

[Cuyan]

I'm no troll, I just happen to know good acting from, you know, their acting.

[NinjaCarm]

I'd be very happy if the first reboot film was along the lines of Batman Begins, where there is character growth in spades, avoiding melodrama, with great action scenes.

Showing Peter's struggle and guilt over Uncle Ben's death was just about breezed over, and didn't have any real weight in Raimi's films. The whole trilogy didn't have that genuine real feel to it.

I want guilt and character growth to spawn the fun and quip-full Spider-Man we all know and love who takes on the mantel of responsibility.

[XxDelta09xX]

^Agreed.

[mre]

I'd be very happy if the first reboot film was along the lines of Batman Begins, where there is character growth in spades, avoiding melodrama, with great action scenes.

Showing Peter's struggle and guilt over Uncle Ben's death was just about breezed over, and didn't have any real weight in Raimi's films. The whole trilogy didn't have that genuine real feel to it.

I want guilt and character growth to spawn the fun and quip-full Spider-Man we all know and love who takes on the mantel of responsibility.

But then people will complain that they ripped off the idea from Begins.

[Cuyan]

If a film has well portrayed character growth, a lack of melodrama, and great action then it's ripping off Batman Begins? That's ridiculous.

[Darkness Falls]

that is very rediculous

[DACMAN]

If a film has well portrayed character growth, a lack of melodrama, and great action then it's ripping off Batman Begins? That's ridiculous.

Agreed. That has to be one of the most idiotic things ever read posted on the internet. Couldn't we then say that any comic movie after Spider-Man 2 that has great action must be ripping off Spider-Man? :whatever:

[Cuyan]

Any movie with stuff in it is ripping off life.

[S_H_F_4839]

Im curious to see how its going to look if they are going the ultimate route. I just really hope we dont get the goblin again this soon or doc ock.

[Darkness Falls]

hopefully no hulk goblin :/

[Batspider77]

hopefully no hulk goblin :/

I second that.

[3dman27]

thierded forthed and fithed

[S_H_F_4839]

I would like to see norman osborn in the new series but lets wait a little while before he becomes the goblin and I agree that the physical transformation may not be the way to go.

[The Bat-Man]

Norman Osborn should definitely be involved from that start, I think, but I also think there should be a build-up to him becoming the Green Goblin. He is such a major Spider-Man villain and they have such an epic battle. That should be saved for a second or third film (if they get that far). He should only become a major threat when Spider-Man has more experience.

[Ipodman]

Maybe Dr Connor becomes Lizards early in the new trilogy... but Norman Osborn becomes Green Goblin later on... reverse of the first trilogy

[S_H_F_4839]

I have been doing some more thinking about this set of films (hopefully)

I mixed and mingled some ideas from both the ultimate and the 616 universes, but I recall a spiderman comic from years ago that said the mugger did not pick the parkers residence at random.

The idea I have been toying with deals with the mob as spidermans major foil in the first one as opposed to a single villain running him crazy.

The idea goes like this, yes peter has an opportunity to stop the mugger and doesnt for whatever petty reason, he doesnt but theres more to it than that, (here is where I will probably get flamed because I am actually going to make the mugger sympathetic). I think the mugger should owe the mob money and that him robbing the wrestling gig was a half hearted attempt to come up with the money he owed the mob, He takes what he manages to steal back to his bosses and they tell him that its nowhere near what he owes but they are willing to give him one last chance to bring them their money. They have recently been informed by their contact on the police force of where a former assosciate that turned states evidence went into hiding before he got out of the city. The assosciate had to make a hasty escape when they found out where he was and it was believed for a long time that he had taken a large sum of money from them before he disappeared, they thought originally that he had taken it with him when he ran but now they are starting to think he stashed it somewhere in the house where he was hiding. What is now the Parker residence. They tell the mugger that the only way for him to get his debt clear fast enough is to break into the house and find the money.

I picture the interaction going something like this ben and may sitting on the couch waiting on peter to get home, when the mugger breaks into the back door, ben takes out a stick or broom handle or something, just something to defend himself with and stands around the corner from the kitchen. The mugger turns the corner into the living room and sees may sitting on the couch, not expecting the old people to be awake he raises his gun and ben knocks it out of his hand with the weapon he is holding. May runs for the front door and runs for a nearby neighbors to call 911, while ben is scuffling with the mugger a shot rings out and the mugger runs to a nearby warehouse to hide not from the cops but from the mob. He has failed his task and is going to be killed. If gwen stacy is peters best friend in this adaptation then maybe have may run to her house knowing her father is a police captain, I could see him catching sight of the mugger and getting in a foot pursuit while telling gwen to get 911 and the paramedics on the way thats how the cops know where he is.

Captain stacy can call in for backup from the police to the scene and this is where peter finds out about the mugger he is helping aunt may into an ambulance who has fainted and hears it come over the radio that captain stacy has the subject trapped and thats where peter goes after him. He confronts the mugger in the wrestling uniform and upon the realization he could have stopped him earlier at the arena peter knocks him out ties him up and leaves him for the police. I would introduce electro at this point we need someone that can get buy the cops and silence this guy before he can spill what he knows, and electro is personal bodyguard and assassin of the boss of the mob family.(preferably silvermane). Peter upon learning of the muggers execution starts digging into other mysterious homicides with mob ties and he gets on electros trail of bodies and then sets about a plan to bring down this mob boss and his top thugs for their involvement in his uncles death.

If they wanted they could even go so far as the assosicate that betrayed the family was silvermanes partner on a job and instead of showing up at the meeting with the money he dissappeared, I could see them saying the parker house had been a safe house thirty or something years ago and after the assosciate was discovered he had to run, or they could have him killed before he tells where he hid the money, and silvermanes theory was that was the only place he could have hid it was in the parker house. It would be a fun idea to play with. They could even get into a little background where other previous residents that had tried moving into the home had been run off or hurt by people with suspected mob ties. That the police captain moving in next door was what put a stop to silvermane using obvious mob tactics and he waited on an oppurtunity to send someone in, the mugger could have even possibly been planning suicide by cop knowing what the mob would do to him. Silvermane with certain cops on the payroll had arranged for that incident to occur but spidermans involvement messes up the whole plan.

[Rodrigo90]

I just want Lizard to be used in this movie. Then psychotic Kraven can come into it. Lizard makes the most sense to appear at this point.

[kedrell]

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=17994439&postcount=3415

Hmm, it's a little bit convoluted not to mention that the coincidences are starting to mount up(and story's plausability is shrinking as that happens)but it's got a few ideas in it that aren't bad. Bringing more crime elements into the story is something I've been advocating for a while now. Some good possibilties here, but also plenty of loose threads that need to be tied up.

[Tony Stark]

I'd be very happy if the first reboot film was along the lines of Batman Begins, where there is character growth in spades, avoiding melodrama, with great action scenes.

Showing Peter's struggle and guilt over Uncle Ben's death was just about breezed over, and didn't have any real weight in Raimi's films. The whole trilogy didn't have that genuine real feel to it.

I want guilt and character growth to spawn the fun and quip-full Spider-Man we all know and love who takes on the mantel of responsibility.

Here's the problem. Spider-Man is not Batman. The reason Batman Begins worked is because no one had done an adaptation of Batman that showed him as the Dark Knight detective. The first Burton film was close, but it was more focused on things from Vicky Vale's perspective than from Bruce Wayne's. The next 3 films went off the deep end.

Spider-man whatever faults it has, is essentially the Stan-Lee/Ditko/Romita story, which is when Spider-man was at his best. The other versions of Spider-man pale by comparison, especially the Ultimate version.

Second of all, with Batman Begins they took a "real world" approach to Batman. Sorry but you can't do that with a guy who sticks to walls and swings from a web. You might even say Rami's version was more real world than the comics, but people threw a fit. Like having tiny hairs from his fingers being the reason he sticks to walls, you know like a real spider does? I won't even get into the organic web-shooters.

About the only change that I'd like to see is have the real Gwen Stacey death scene, and have MJ introduced as she was in the comics. Now if they go this route, I'm all on board.

[NinjaCarm]

Here's the problem. Spider-Man is not Batman. The reason Batman Begins worked is because no one had done an adaptation of Batman that showed him as the Dark Knight detective. The first Burton film was close, but it was more focused on things from Vicky Vale's perspective than from Bruce Wayne's. The next 3 films went off the deep end.

Spider-man whatever faults it has, is essentially the Stan-Lee/Ditko/Romita story, which is when Spider-man was at his best. The other versions of Spider-man pale by comparison, especially the Ultimate version.

Second of all, with Batman Begins they took a "real world" approach to Batman. Sorry but you can't do that with a guy who sticks to walls and swings from a web. You might even say Rami's version was more real world than the comics, but people threw a fit. Like having tiny hairs from his fingers being the reason he sticks to walls, you know like a real spider does? I won't even get into the organic web-shooters.

About the only change that I'd like to see is have the real Gwen Stacey death scene, and have MJ introduced as she was in the comics. Now if they go this route, I'm all on board.

I disargree whoel heartedly with your argument. Batman Begins felt genuine and there was a lot of character development. That was my point, as it was stated, how did you miss that?

Where did I say anything about ultra ultra realism. I do want some real urgency and no cheese and a depth to Peter Parker we haven't seen.

I hate when people say Spider-Man is not Batman, I'm so sick of this argument. That's not the point. I just want it that darn good. Period.

[Dangerous]

Spider-man whatever faults it has, is essentially the Stan-Lee/Ditko/Romita story, which is when Spider-man was at his best. The other versions of Spider-man pale by comparison, especially the Ultimate version.

The Stern / JR JR run in the early eighties on ASM was as good as the Stan Lee run. As was Gerry Conway's ASM#111–149. ;)
Also, while seeing Gwen's death done right is important, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

What we need to see is these characters portrayed correctly to start with. That means MJ as the party girl who lights up any room she is in and is almost as full of quips as Spidey, but deep down inside she is quite different and it's all a front.

And Gwen- not as the geeky pal as portrayed in Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, not as the emo douche of USM, but as the beautiful and classy fellow Science student of ESU who everyone likes, who get's off on the wrong foot w/ PP but eventually they fall in love and she will defend him in front of anyone no matter how weird his behavior makes him look.

[Chris Wallace]

IDK if anybody has thought about this, but a lot of you guys are demanding more quips. A darker, grittier Spider-Man would likely quip less than Raimi's, not more.

[Dangerous]

Only if you think about it in black and white terms.

Of course you could have a darker grittier film but still have Spidey full of quips.

[Dangerous]

delete.

[HughJackFan420]

i only think it should be dark when it needs to be dark like say in battles and the development of the villains but as far as Peter or Spidey alone it should be along the lines of Spectacular Spider-Man type of tone

[Dangerous]

i only think it should be dark when it needs to be dark like say in battles and the development of the villains but as far as Peter or Spidey alone it should be along the lines of Spectacular Spider-Man type of tone

Agree.

[©KAW]

May I ask this question, who said it was going to be darker/edgier, is this a rumor or did Sony say this?

[HughJackFan420]

it should like everything is honky dorey in Peters life but when Peter/Spidey meets a villain he gets to see how crazy or how messed up they really are. i mean to a 17 yr old kid to be face to face with a maniac that wants to gut ya where u stand is some scary stuff. the dark should be for the dark and the light for the light. no need to make Spidey himself dark unless of course we go the symbiote route again and this time no lame dancing and emo Peter.

[HughJackFan420]

May I ask this question, who said it was going to be darker/edgier, is this a rumor or did Sony say this?


i think its just a request by many fans

[Deaths Head II]

There was a script review or something of that nature that said the reboot script is way darker and TDK-esque and I believe Sony themselves said thats what they're going for.

[grand-I-am]

Everybody remember the Dragon ball movie debacle? How the stupid people running that movie thought just by making a movie based on the popular cartoon would instantly make fans run to see the movie. Man, were they wrong.
Any new information about the spidey movie will fly through the internet like wild fire. So God help them that the stuff they put out doesn't alienate the fans. Bad word of mouth will get across real real fast. That's what happened to the DBZ movie. People decided not to see that movie way before the trailer came out! news tidbits about a movie based on a VERY popular character / cartoon is so critical.

[night0205]

Plus Dragon Ball looked HORRIBLE anyways, you don't even have to go online, just watch the trailer.

[WolfCypher]

I had the idea that since their rebooting the Spider-Man movies, they might as well incorporate the BND era elements. To do this, the series has to recognize, but NOT explain, the 1st 3 movies & sudden changes to the continuity.

Harry died in SM3...in New SM, he's alive and kicking. His death on SM3 has to be brought up, and a weak explaination is given.

Peter and MJ are broken up. It is brought to the audience's attention that they were in a relationship which started in SM2.

Doctor Octopus is still alive...and terminal. He returns from SM2 with his body housed inside a mechanical tomb that possess 10+ tentacles.

Norman Osborn cheated death from SM1.

The Sandman has a daughter...oh, wait...that actually did happen in the movies already.

Topher Grace I mean, Eddie Grac...Brock...Eddie Brock...apparently didn't die in SM3...he doesn't know Peter is Spider-Man, and he's sporting a white costume now.

Carlie, Vin, Lily, The owner of the DB, Menace, Screwball, Freak, have chances of making appearnces. We pretend that they've been around since the 1st Spider-Man movie.

Mephisto is the villain of the New movie.

I never said these be good ideas.

[sdc10]

I had the idea that since their rebooting the Spider-Man movies, they might as well incorporate the BND era elements. To do this, the series has to recognize, but NOT explain, the 1st 3 movies & sudden changes to the continuity.

Harry died in SM3...in New SM, he's alive and kicking. His death on SM3 has to be brought up, and a weak explaination is given.

Peter and MJ are broken up. It is brought to the audience's attention that they were in a relationship which started in SM2.

Doctor Octopus is still alive...and terminal. He returns from SM2 with his body housed inside a mechanical tomb that possess 10+ tentacles.

Norman Osborn cheated death from SM1.

The Sandman has a daughter...oh, wait...that actually did happen in the movies already.

Topher Grace I mean, Eddie Grac...Brock...Eddie Brock...apparently didn't die in SM3...he doesn't know Peter is Spider-Man, and he's sporting a white costume now.

Carlie, Vin, Lily, The owner of the DB, Menace, Screwball, Freak, have chances of making appearnces. We pretend that they've been around since the 1st Spider-Man movie.

Mephisto is the villain of the New movie.

I never said these be good ideas.

im sorry was this some kind of attempt at wittiness? because if it was :facepalm:

[Cuyan]

There was a script review or something of that nature that said the reboot script is way darker and TDK-esque and I believe Sony themselves said thats what they're going for.
Yeah, no. Sony never mentioned anything about trying to emulate The Dark Knight. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what is known as rumor perpetuation.

[Deaths Head II]

I should clarify that Sony only said they're going for darker and grittier. The TDK-esque comment was about the script review only. Which is still extremely damning.

[Cuyan]

I don't buy the darker and grittier either.

[craigdbfan]

Lets get it clear though. The fans or people following this movie didn't start that rumor. It was EW (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/) with this article:

The next Spider-Man film will be a reboot of the franchise, not a continuation of series Sam Raimi created back in 2002 — in a move similar to Batman Begins restarting the Batman franchise seven years after Batman and Robin underwhelmed fans and critics.

This time around, the series will place Peter Parker in a more contemporary setting, as a teenager battling today’s issues. The decision to go with an origin story stemmed from Sony developing two Spidey projects simultaneously.


That and insider reports that Vanderbilts script is "dark" and "gritty". The mention of teen angst in Sony's press release doesn't help either.

[Cuyan]

So Sony never said anything about Batman at all, nor did they mention anything being darker, gotcha.

[NewYorkSpider]

The only thing they should make dark and gritty about the movie is the villains and when Spider-Man is fighting them.

[©KAW]

i think its just a request by many fansThere was a script review or something of that nature that said the reboot script is way darker and TDK-esque and I believe Sony themselves said thats what they're going for.Lets get it clear though. The fans or people following this movie didn't start that rumor. It was EW (http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/01/11/spider-man-reboot/) with this article:

That and insider reports that Vanderbilts script is "dark" and "gritty". The mention of teen angst in Sony's press release doesn't help either.
So basically, it's nothing more than a rumor, a rumor that I'm hoping is true in terms of making the villain(s) much darker/grittier/evil/complex. So it's nothing more than a rumor fans went wild with. Did "EW" actually read the script, or are they just pretending that they did, I read no specifics from them of the content within the script, like who the villains are.

[©KAW]

The only thing they should make dark and gritty about the movie is the villains and when Spider-Man is fighting them.That's exactly what I want. As I thought Spider-Man villains in the previous movies were written like a bunch of pussies or like a weak cartoon villains.

[Cuyan]

EW is just about the worst source for any kind of news. :down

[craigdbfan]

Both KAW and Cuyan need to slow down their tricycle full of crappy sarcasm.

I didn't post the EW article as some sort of valid source, I only posted it to clear the fact that "fans" didn't start that baseless rumor (unless you hold EW to some sort of standard).

Why some (keyword here) fans ran with it is a whole different story.

[Avengers-Report]

The only thing they should make dark and gritty about the movie is the villains and when Spider-Man is fighting them.

True that.

[NinjaCarm]

True that.

Yes, let's have a real sense of urgency for once!:cmad: VERY VERY LITTLE CHEESE!:cmad:

[Ipodman]

I guess only the comic book fans will get the unfunny joke if the movie starts off with super-fast flashbacks of SM1, 2 and 3, and then smashcut to Mephisto saying "Its a brand new day!"
Something like that..hmm...

[chaseter]

So basically, it's nothing more than a rumor, a rumor that I'm hoping is true in terms of making the villain(s) much darker/grittier/evil/complex. So it's nothing more than a rumor fans went wild with. Did "EW" actually read the script, or are they just pretending that they did, I read no specifics from them of the content within the script, like who the villains are.

Everything about what Raimi wanted for SM4 were all rumors but you were quick to damn him. Smell the hypocrisy?:whatever:

[Spider-Fan]

Fans choose to acknowledge which ever piece of news pushes their own agenda. It's politics 101 :up:

We don't know what Raimi's film was (we only know rumors, but not which are true/false) and rumors on what the new film is going to be. I'm going to let this all play out.

[©KAW]

Everything about what Raimi wanted for SM4 were all rumors but you were quick to damn him. Smell the hypocrisy?:whatever:I don't care about SM4, I've been damning him since the first movie.

[chaseter]

I don't care about SM4, I've been damning him since the first movie.
Then quit whining about people reacting to rumors. You complaining about SM4 rumors but saying "HEY GAIZ, stop it with SM reboot rumor complaining," is hypocrisy and annoying.:o

[Doctor Jones]

Ugh, "dark and gritty?" I really hope that isn't true. I hope Webb can do something better with it.

[Chris Wallace]

What really annoys me about this whole thing is that the reboot was a business decision. It wasn't done in the name of art, or for the sake of making a better movie. It's not like Raimi had failed them. They made this move for one reason & one reason only-to ride on "The Dark Knight"'s coat-tails in hopes of pulling similar numbers.

[Dangerous]

They made this move for one reason & one reason only-to ride on "The Dark Knight"'s coat-tails in hopes of pulling similar numbers.

Thanx for letting us know that, I wasn't aware you were a Marvel executive or staffer at Sony pictures.

[sauronthegreat]

What really annoys me about this whole thing is that the reboot was a business decision. It wasn't done in the name of art, or for the sake of making a better movie. It's not like Raimi had failed them. They made this move for one reason & one reason only-to ride on "The Dark Knight"'s coat-tails in hopes of pulling similar numbers.

But isn't it a good thing if the result is satisfying?

And Raimi's vision was over with part 3, even if there was part 4 it would be the end of it, and why prolong the inevitable and spend more money, and whats more important... time! Why spend another three or four years until the eventual reboot. And IMO it's a better way to end the trilogy as it did, than to have a grand finale with that silly Vulture plot on par with another boring relationship plot between Peter & MJ, when the last shot of SM3 told the whole story what's the outcome. There's no point in pointlessly complicating things even more.

[Deaths Head II]

Why spend another three or four years until the eventual reboot. .

So the rights could go to Disney and we could get a proper reboot handled by Marvel that is part of the Marvel film universe.

[©KAW]

Then quit whining about people reacting to rumors. You complaining about SM4 rumors but saying "HEY GAIZ, stop it with SM reboot rumor complaining," is hypocrisy and annoying.:oNo, I shall not. Now off you go to play with the other kids.

[Sebastos]

Stan Lee Talks About the Spider-Man Reboot

With director Marc Webb (http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/324629/marc-webb) confirmed to take over (http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/5598/marc-webb-confirmed-as-spider-man-reboot-director) the Spider-Man franchise from Sam Raimi (http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/98566/sam-raimi), plenty of opinions have spread about the rebooted Spider-Man 4 (http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie/227363/spider-man-4). James Franco (http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/130661/james-franco) and Kirsten Dunst (http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/125882/kirsten-dunst) both expressed sadness (http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/5627/james-franco-and-kirsten-dunst-talk-about-the-spider-man-reboot) over the situation, while Stan Lee (http://www.reelzchannel.com/person/100275/stan-lee) continues to believe it's a good idea. The creator of Marvel icons such as Spider-Man and the X-Men, Lee explained to Access Hollywood why he's for the reboot (http://www.accesshollywood.com/video_1196577&dst=ah%7Cwidget%7CAccess%20Hollywood%20Video&__source=ah%7Cwidget%7CAccess%20Hollywood%20Video) .

I think it's a good idea, personally. I think that, after a while, things seem a little "the same." You feel "well, it's like the one I saw." Making him younger, playing up the problems of a teenage kid with a super power, which is the way he was originally written when we first did the book, I think it will be interesting. Naturally, a lot of the fans are saying, "No! We don't want to change!" But they always say that. But I think, when it comes out, it's going to be great! And I'll have a cameo, so how bad can it be?

http://www.reelzchannel.com/movie-news/5666/stan-lee-talks-about-the-spider-man-reboot

[Gamma Goliath]

i think thats a lil old

[The Joker]

No, that's a new one. He says alot more there than he did in the previous one, where he just said he was excited for it.

[Sebastos]

i think thats a lil old

News to me, apologizes if it was already posted.

[Ipodman]

Is TIH considered a reboot?

[Deaths Head II]

Yes.

[Mace Dolex]

As long as Stan gets paid for his cameo and gets to make Hollywood premieres he'll probably agree to anything done to Spidey.

[thejon93]

Ugh, "dark and gritty?" I really hope that isn't true. I hope Webb can do something better with it.
I know. Especially after having watched '(500) Days of Summer', I think that Webb would be much more suitable in directing a "light and fluffy" Spider-Man flick. "Dark and gritty" is completely unappealing to me when talking, or even thinking, about anything to do with Spider-Man. Same goes for Mark Webb directing a "dark and gritty" movie. I'm worried that it may feel pretentious if they go through with this. Sure, it works with a character like Batman. Why? Because he's human. We could all one-day imagine ourselves spending millions of dollars on gadgets and gizmos, going out to fight criminals and defend our city. With Spider-Man... Sure, you could always dream of being biten by a radioactive-spider that wouldn't end up killing you instead of giving you amazing spider-powers.

Anyhow, what it all comes down to is the question: "Can we relate to the character?" Peter Parker. Yes, we certainly can relate to him. That's what makes his adventures as Spider-Man so thrilling. We like the guy behind the mask, as well as the character he himself is portraying behind it. Same with every great comic-book character. But, let's edmit it... Certain characters weren't meant to be "dark". Look at the 'Captain America' movie from the 90s. Why did that film suck? Well, it was boring. It was depressing. It was laughable and it was too damn serious. Same goes for certain characters being too "light and fluffy". Remember the 'Fantastic Four' movie from '05? Remember why that sucked? It's simple, it was too campy. The actors could've been winking at the camera the whole time and it wouldn't have even made a difference. The screenplay was written for smartass characters to make smartass remarks to make a smartass movie that sucked because it was too big of a smartass to it's audience. Now, I still believe that the 'Fantastic Four' movie could've been a lot of fun if it was a "light and fluffy" flick. I really do. The problem was obvious from the very start, however. The characters were too unlikeable. Remember 'The Incredibles', that great little 'Pixar' movie released around the same time? Remember what that movie did right? Oh yeah... We actually cared about the characters. Even the minor characters had personality and depth, more so than any main character from the 'Fantastic Four' movie!

Oh, wait... What was I talking about again? Oh yeah. "Dark and gritty" is not Spider-Man. "Dark and gritty" is not Superman. "Dark and gritty" is not The Flash. "Dark and gritty" is no good for certain characters... Maybe the studio big-shots should actually read the comic-books from now on if they're worried about making strong franchises. I trust DC may be on the right-track. I trust that Marvel is most certainly on the right-track. But, it's too bad that the one property Marvel doesn't own is the big-gun of the Marvel-Universe. Spider-Man. If this movie is no good/mediocre/watchable, get ready for two more installments before Sony's done milking Spidey to death. Do you guys really want to support that?... I know I sure don't. If this movie isn't something special. It will never get my money...

Psst! "Dark and gritty". :facepalm:
:ikyn

[Cuyan]

Didn't we debunk the "dark and gritty" thing a few days ago?

[thejon93]

Didn't we debunk the "dark and gritty" thing a few days ago?
NO! The war against Sony must still CONTINUE!!!

Seriously though, I'm just speaking my mind. This is a message board, we all come on here to do just that. Speak our minds, then have people tell us we're wrong afterwards... Somehow they always find a way to make me wrong. But, don't ask me how. :oldrazz:

[VenomVsSpidey]

You will never hear Stan talk crap about spider-man. He's always positive about everything..maybe even OMD/BND :csad:

[Chris Wallace]

But isn't it a good thing if the result is satisfying?



ONLY if.
"The Dark Knight" was a great movie. I have never said otherwise. I'm jus tnot so sure it was a great comic book movie. And if it is in fact the template for the new Spider-Man films, which I strongly suspect will be the case, I worry that the result WON'T be satisfying.
I worry that a Batman-style approach will be taken with this movie, which I feel is wrong. I worry that we might get a crime drama with costumed characters, not a superhero movie. I worry that there will be too much compromise for the sake of distancing from Raimi's films. I'm worried that this business decision will ultimately be a slap in the face.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's hard for me to share the enthusiasm of, say, Dangerous or any other fan who seems to think Raimi's films were an affront to humanity.

[Cuyan]

I'm thinking the new Spider-Man will have more in common with the Pirates of the Caribbean films than it will with The Dark Knight.

[Chris Wallace]

You will never hear Stan talk crap about spider-man. He's always positive about everything..maybe even OMD/BND :csad:Not true; he had NOTHING nice to say about the 70's TV show. When asked what he contributed to the series, he said his only contribution was "complaining about the damn thing all the time".

[chaseter]

No, I shall not. Now off you go to play with the other kids.

Yes, that make me the child.

[rocco2216]

ONLY if.
"The Dark Knight" was a great movie. I have never said otherwise. I'm jus tnot so sure it was a great comic book movie. And if it is in fact the template for the new Spider-Man films, which I strongly suspect will be the case, I worry that the result WON'T be satisfying.
I worry that a Batman-style approach will be taken with this movie, which I feel is wrong. I worry that we might get a crime drama with costumed characters, not a superhero movie. I worry that there will be too much compromise for the sake of distancing from Raimi's films. I'm worried that this business decision will ultimately be a slap in the face.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's hard for me to share the enthusiasm of, say, Dangerous or any other fan who seems to think Raimi's films were an affront to humanity.

Not a great comic book movie? LOL, well what exactly is a great comic book movie supposed to be? Cause it's not cheesy or cartoony? It's a great Batman movie therefore it's a great comic book movie. Are comic book movies supposed to all be the same?

[night0205]

Marvel Movies have been a lot like Comic Books; Some have been great and some have been horrible. Stan Lee has been involved in story lines in comics, that are horrible, and the movies have been "mostly" good so far, so... I'd be positive to about Marvel films, and all the characters I've created being made into hundred million dollar franchises.

[sauronthegreat]

So the rights could go to Disney and we could get a proper reboot handled by Marvel that is part of the Marvel film universe.

And why are you so certain this will not be a proper reboot?

Batman had a proper reboot and it was handled by Warner Brothers, even after 'Forever' and 'Batman & Robin (and Batgirl)'

If they have in mind a trilogy, then in everyones interest will be to deliver a solid start for a new vision on which it will be easier to build upon, unlike Raimi's.

[agustin09]

I think that spider-man 3 is not a reason to do this, could have followed, what happens is that the salaries of Sam, Tobey and Kirsten were so high, and the budget for the film also would be, which decided to begin again, hooking to the public adolescent, and earn more money by investing the least, policy of Hollywood.

[sauronthegreat]

ONLY if.
"The Dark Knight" was a great movie. I have never said otherwise. I'm jus tnot so sure it was a great comic book movie. And if it is in fact the template for the new Spider-Man films, which I strongly suspect will be the case, I worry that the result WON'T be satisfying.
I worry that a Batman-style approach will be taken with this movie, which I feel is wrong. I worry that we might get a crime drama with costumed characters, not a superhero movie. I worry that there will be too much compromise for the sake of distancing from Raimi's films. I'm worried that this business decision will ultimately be a slap in the face.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But it's hard for me to share the enthusiasm of, say, Dangerous or any other fan who seems to think Raimi's films were an affront to humanity.

I understand you fear this reboot will go in an unwanted and unappropriated direction by following other examples, which are not similar to the nature of the character.
Well there is a chance this will fail, and we'll get a bad start, but if that happens then the rights will divert to Disney. If Sony doesn't deliver a solid film, then Disney will do anything they can to get hold of the rights and deliver their vision of Spider-Man. I am certain that we'll get an official announcement soon that Disney and Sony will have a cooperation with this new franchise.

The thing is that if we got Spider-Man 4 that film would have nothing more to deliver. They were certain for not going with the Lizard, even Mysterio was not a top choice for the villain. I believe that after the Goblin, Octopus, Sandman and Venom only those two could deliver a certain amount of creativity to the franchise (even though the Lizard's story was used in a way for Spider-Man 2). And I will not even go with the love drama between MJ and Peter. With SM4 we would get another 'Batman & Robin' or Superman 4 and then would have to wait a fair amount of years for a proper reboot.

I think that this is very wise decision to start a reboot until there is still a interest for the character, not after it is diminished.

I have a faith in this new start, because it will not start with a bang, and that's certain. It will not start with Spidey's arch nemesis and kill him. It will probably not establish the relationship in the first shot of the film. It will not have one-dimensional characters that serve their purpose for a single film. There is a chance they will learn from their mistakes, and I believe they do by hiring a director like Marc Webb (who did a brilliant job with '500 Days of Summer' on a character development level) and not starting with a big budget, which proves that they are not going with the top villains for a first film.

I would be more satisfied with a good start, a solid foundation, than a good single 300million film.

And IMO only few films are good 'comic book films' ..and those are: Sin City, 300, Watchmen and V for Vendetta. All the others are films inspired by a comics, and there are good and bad examples.

[Oscorp]

I agree with your post! As it seems, SM4 would suck anyway. Better start anew as soon as possible then and try to make it better.

[Oscorp]

sorry dp

[agustin09]

I would be more satisfied with a good start, a solid foundation, than a good single 300million film.



All we want, but we must be realistic, do you think they can do something good with 80 million, a lot of young actors and a director rookie that is beginning to directing films, when the only thing that direct were music videos? Think about it.

[Eggyman]

Originally Posted by sauronthegreat http://www.superherohype.com/drakon/skins/shhclassic/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=18001470#post18001470)
I would be more satisfied with a good start, a solid foundation, than a good single 300million film.


I'd rather they just show their balls straight away. I don't wanna get turned on by some hot foreplay only to be disappointed by the sex.

[sauronthegreat]

I agree with your post! As it seems, SM4 would suck anyway. Better start anew as soon as possible then and try to make it better.

:up:
And what a better proof that it would such than a limbo they were in with the script from the start. When there is motivation and passion the idea writes itself. To not be able to write a descent Spider-Man script that is disturbing. And it's not the writers fault, but the direction the franchise was going.

[sauronthegreat]

All we want, but we must be realistic, do you think they can do something good with 80 million, a lot of young actors and a director rookie that is beginning to directing films, when the only thing that direct were music videos? Think about it.

Yes! Definitely, they can.. even more than what "stars" like Maguire, Dunst and Raimi were able to accomplish. People will finally realize that they are not going to see a film about Tobey and Kirsten directed by Sam Raimi, but a Spider-Man film (made by a fan, for fans). Sometimes all those big name director and actors become too full of themselves and try to recreate history and mold things as they see fit.
Peter Jackson handled an epic without directing a big budget film before, and that is a passion and art of filmaking.

[sauronthegreat]

I'd rather they just show their balls straight away. I don't wanna get turned on by some hot foreplay only to be disappointed by the sex.

A not very smart thing to do for a franchise that is meant to have sequels.
You don't do Mandarin in the first Iron Man film; and what do you do after the Joker is killed? Or you are not defending Minas Tirith in the Fellowship of the Ring.

[Eggyman]

I just meant they should start as they mean to go on. By no means am I saying they should blow their A-listers in the first outing, but I believe it's important that they show us what they have from the start, rather than using a film to build up, as a promise of things to come.

[Chris Wallace]

I understand you fear this reboot will go in an unwanted and unappropriated direction by following other examples, which are not similar to the nature of the character.
Well there is a chance this will fail, and we'll get a bad start, but if that happens then the rights will divert to Disney. If Sony doesn't deliver a solid film, then Disney will do anything they can to get hold of the rights and deliver their vision of Spider-Man. I am certain that we'll get an official announcement soon that Disney and Sony will have a cooperation with this new franchise.

The thing is that if we got Spider-Man 4 that film would have nothing more to deliver. They were certain for not going with the Lizard, even Mysterio was not a top choice for the villain. I believe that after the Goblin, Octopus, Sandman and Venom only those two could deliver a certain amount of creativity to the franchise (even though the Lizard's story was used in a way for Spider-Man 2). And I will not even go with the love drama between MJ and Peter. With SM4 we would get another 'Batman & Robin' or Superman 4 and then would have to wait a fair amount of years for a proper reboot.

I think that this is very wise decision to start a reboot until there is still a interest for the character, not after it is diminished.

I have a faith in this new start, because it will not start with a bang, and that's certain. It will not start with Spidey's arch nemesis and kill him. It will probably not establish the relationship in the first shot of the film. It will not have one-dimensional characters that serve their purpose for a single film. There is a chance they will learn from their mistakes, and I believe they do by hiring a director like Marc Webb (who did a brilliant job with '500 Days of Summer' on a character development level) and not starting with a big budget, which proves that they are not going with the top villains for a first film.

I would be more satisfied with a good start, a solid foundation, than a good single 300million film.

And IMO only few films are good 'comic book films' ..and those are: Sin City, 300, Watchmen and V for Vendetta. All the others are films inspired by a comics, and there are good and bad examples.

You are thus far the ONLY pro-rebooter who has shown a willingness to see where I am coming from.

[Chris Wallace]

Not a great comic book movie? LOL, well what exactly is a great comic book movie supposed to be? Cause it's not cheesy or cartoony? It's a great Batman movie therefore it's a great comic book movie. Are comic book movies supposed to all be the same?

No. But they are supposed to be true to the source material. The characters-particularly the villains-in this movie had little if anything to do with their comic counterparts. Scarecrow was a glorified drug dealer, not a fear-obsessed psychopath. Two-Face was just an angry man flipping a coin and exacting revenge, not a man with an MPD trying to decide if he was good or bad. Joker was a sociopathic anarchist, not the ultimate demented prankster. Gotham had the feel of Chicago, not the feel of Gotham. Batman-still dependent on Fox to figure things out for him, had no faith in humanity's better nature when Joker threatened to blow up a hospital, going so far as to tell Gordon that his own cops couldn't be trusted. He then later concluded that a boat full of convicted felons could be trusted to do the right thing even if it meant their lives. He allowed Two-Face to shoot him when he could have easily hit him with a Batarang during the coin toss. The list goes on and on. But we forgave all of that because we were entertained.
I would just rather not have too much of a trade-off.

[Eggyman]

You are thus far the ONLY pro-rebooter who has shown a willingness to see where I am coming from.

I also agree, to an extent.

[sdc10]

No. But they are supposed to be true to the source material.

But also remember TDK was supposed to be set in the "real" world. Some comic concepts just dont work in the real world thats why they are comics. Do really believe the concept of a billionaire dressing up and fighting crime could actually happen? They had to make it believable. Also remember, not everyone seeing these movies are comic book fans so what does it matter to them if it is true to the source material?

[Chris Wallace]

I will say this; if I'm wrong-if the new movie turns out to be great and should it even improve upon Raimi's films, I will say so. I will be the first to step up & praise Webb & Co., this I promise you. And I don't truly think a movie has to be married to the comics in order to be great. Some deviation will always occur. I think the Spectacular animated series shows that you can take liberties with the material and still deliver a quality product-and that's just a Saturday morning show. But I do not think that abandoning Raimi was necessary nor was it the best move. The fact that they were initially willing ot let him helm a 4th movie only validates my previous argument about it being a business decision rather than an artistic one.

[Chris Wallace]

But also remember TDK was supposed to be set in the "real" world. Some comic concepts just dont work in the real world thats why they are comics. Do really believe the concept of a billionaire dressing up and fighting crime could actually happen? They had to make it believable. Also remember, not everyone seeing these movies are comic book fans so what does it matter to them if it is true to the source material?

This is what I mean by a trade-off; faithfulness for "realism". I get the "real world" argument. I just question its validity in some instances. Are you saying that a man can't go crazy & think he's 2 different people in the real world? We can accept an idea like fear gas but we can't accept someone having a crazy reason for wanting to use it? We can accept a man wanting to wear clown makeup to commit crimes, a guy driving military equipment along city streets, and someone getting half his face burned off and living to tell about it? Come on.
And again, if this is the template for the Spider-Man reboot, how much are you willing to sacrifice for realism in a movie about a guy who gets poison injected into his veins & can subsequently stick to walls & jump 20 feet?

[Eggyman]

I will say this; if I'm wrong-if the new movie turns out to be great and should it even improve upon Raimi's films, I will say so. I will be the first to step up & praise Webb & Co., this I promise you. And I don't truly think a movie has to be married to the comics in order to be great. Some deviation will always occur. I think the Spectacular animated series shows that you can take liberties with the material and still deliver a quality product-and that's just a Saturday morning show. But I do not think that abandoning Raimi was necessary nor was it the best move. The fact that they were initially willing ot let him helm a 4th movie only validates my previous argument about it being a business decision rather than an artistic one.

I was very pleased by the idea of a reboot at first - and still am in some ways ... because I did have a problem with some things in this past franchise. I am, however, aware of the saying: better the devil you know. This could be just the case. There's a lot of things they could improve upon, but there's sure as sh** a lot of stuff they could get wrong that was fine in the previous films. We just don't know yet. The Spidey films we've had did have their flaws, but they were flaws most could accept because, here it is, they were of a high standard despite these flaws.

If you're gonna stay positive about this then, yeh, sure, they have the chance now to improve Raimi's shortcomings. BUT, there's a massive possibility that they could do something far worse.

[spider-neil]

I definately agree batman didn't feel like a 'comic book' movie, rather it was a movie that 'happened' to have batman, as if you'd scooped up batman and placed him in good fellas. in some ways that is a good thing, you care enough about taking a comic book element that you treat it seriously but on the other you are losing something.

I read a lot of comments about raimi's spider-man, about the humour, the cheese, the whackness. when presented with a question of tone ask yourself 'what would stan lee do?' seriously, so there was no cheese in lee/ditko's spider-man? no awkwardness? no whackness? no zany moments? psst, whatever...

each to their own but for me SM2 stands as one of the best superhero movies I have ever seen because a HELL of a lot of elements I enjoy about spider-man, heck comics in general were incorparated into that movie. if you sweep all of that away you WILL lose something. by all means dial back the cheese, make the villians more gritty, although I think doc ock is THE best developed villian in a comic book movie and before someone says joker, he was a GREAT villian but not a well developed villian as a lot of his motivation was left to the viewer to decide.

I think there are two directions to go:
a) make a good COMIC book/superhero movie
b) make a good MOVIE

a lot of the movies I have seen fail in either 'a' or 'b' (and this is just my opinion) for me SM2 succeeds in 'a' AND 'b', what I think is pissing off a load of die hard fans is it may not be a good 'SPIDER-MAN' movie. I think it was but I can certainly see why some people would disagree.

if I'm being totally objective and placing my spidey love to one side, I think there are very few examples of superhero movies that succeeds on all 3 levels

a) make a good COMIC book/superhero movie
b) make a good MOVIE
c) make a good adaptation

[Chris Wallace]

I'd rather they just show their balls straight away. I don't wanna get turned on by some hot foreplay only to be disappointed by the sex.

I'd use a slightly different analogy; if I don't enjoy the first date I ain't askin' her out again!
I guess my biggest worry is that, in order to distance from Raimi's films, they'll throw out EVERYTHING he did right. What are we left with then? "Smallville" with costumes?

[Eggyman]

I'd use a slightly different analogy; if I don't enjoy the first date I ain't askin' her out again!

Nicely put. That's exactly where I was coming from. Plus, we as Spidey fans don't want to be waiting two years for this, only to be teased and having to wait a further two years for the real thing.


I guess my biggest worry is that, in order to distance from Raimi's films, they'll throw out EVERYTHING he did right. What are we left with then? "Smallville" with costumes?

I understand that too. Easiest thing to put my finger on is the costume - they're gonna change the sh** out of that... and the only reason for it is to distance themselves from Raimi even though the costume was a perfect representation of what Spidey's been wearing for decades.

[Chris Wallace]

Nicely put. That's exactly where I was coming from. Plus, we as Spidey fans don't want to be waiting two years for this, only to be teased and having to wait a further two years for the real thing.


Kinda takes me back to your "hot foreplay" analogy; only she's been wearing sexy outfits and talkin' all kinds of smack during the courtship, telling you how good it was gonna be, kept you waiting and THEN couldn't deliver the goods.

I understand that too. Easiest thing to put my finger on is the costume - they're gonna change the sh** out of that... and the only reason for it is to distance themselves from Raimi even though the costume was a perfect representation of what Spidey's been wearing for decades.
That's one of my biggest fears-that we'll get some black & red monstrosity that is faintly remniscent of a Spider-Man costume. Acheson's desing was perfect; the best costume adaptation I've ever seen. And I can't say I'll have extremely high hopes for the movie if I hate the suit. Especially not after "Superman Returns". If they can't get the hero's look right, it's hard for me to trust that the movie will be worth anything.

[Eggyman]

Kinda takes me back to your "hot foreplay" analogy; only she's been wearing sexy outfits and talkin' all kinds of smack during the courtship, telling you how good it was gonna be, kept you waiting and THEN couldn't deliver the goods.

That's one of my biggest fears-that we'll get some black & red monstrosity that is faintly remniscent of a Spider-Man costume. Acheson's desing was perfect; the best costume adaptation I've ever seen. And I can't say I'll have extremely high hopes for the movie if I hate the suit. Especially not after "Superman Returns". If they can't get the hero's look right, it's hard for me to trust that the movie will be worth anything.

Well that's understandable because it's a visual medium. What you see is what welcomes you to the protrayal... the gateway to the rest of the experience. First impressions count. It'll be a lot easier for us to swallow the story they're giving us if we're already on board with what they've done visually.

[Chris Wallace]

Or even if they change the look, but we can understand the changes.

[Oscorp]

The costume is perfect as it is, totally agree about that. Therefore, I don't think they'll change it too much. Maybe the webbing a bit, and the eyes. At least I hope that's as far as they'll go.

[Eggyman]

Yeh I guess. I'm more concerned with change just for the sake of it more than anything. There are some visual changes that could work. It's no secret that Raimi chose to glamorise New York, picking the more polished locations and buildings. Perhaps this time we could see a New York with a bit more grime with real people rather than models on every sidewalk - less Broadwayesque, as it were.

[©KAW]

Not in my case, I hate the look of the new Batman costume (the design is horrible) no matter how many reasons I hear why it looks like that, that goes twice for the Bat-Mobile/Tumbler/Thunder-Tank thing he rides in--but I love me some Dark Knight.

[GhostPoet]

I really hope we don't get another origin story. I think everyone knows the story now...just have it done quickly through the title credits and get on with the actual Spidey stories.

[Venom 1988]

We already know we're not getting an origin story

[©KAW]

And we know this how...which I hope is true?

[Eggyman]

We already know we're not getting an origin story

When has this been said?? I've not seen one way or the other, in print. Also, that avy of yours... :eek:

I hope they're wearing protection - gay sex is the easiest way to spread diseases.

[Nathan]

Someone said that Peter is Spidey from page 1 in the new script.

[Eggyman]

Ahh, was this someone we know and you can't remember their name...?

[Venom 1988]

Well its not official but...

http://twitter.com/DrewAtHitFix/status/7968824667

Drew McWeeny is a film critic and screenwriter btw. And he used to be one of the editors on AICN.